Last week, our editorial board wrote in Our View that the president should be given line-item veto power on spending measures. Sens. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and John McCain, R-Ariz., and Rep. Paul Ryan of Janesville have introduced a bill that would allow the president to delete wasteful spending projects from all spending bills. The measure is in response to yet another spending bill that includes billions of dollars ($7.7 billion this time) in earmark projects.
A couple of readers questioned our boards viewpoint, comparing that to our view nearly a year ago that Gov. Jim Doyle should have his extensive veto powers reduced in Wisconsin.
How does this compare with the veto power available to our Gov. Doyle which everyone protests is grossly unfair, wrote Monrovian 66.
I could be wrong but, at one point in time, didnt the Times disagree with the governor having the line-item veto power in Our View? Yet, now, they agree with it? questioned r.
Points to both readers assuming theyre two different people for making the connection, and for asking the question. There is, however, a subtle but significant difference between Doyles powers and what the president would be granted in the current proposal.
First, the Times has not opposed giving the governor veto capabilities on spending. Its objected to the bizarre and extensive authority the governor has within those veto capabilities.
Until last year, Wisconsins governor was able to move letters and words, and combine sentences to change laws. The power was dubbed The Frankenstein veto.
The Times urged lawmakers to ban the peculiar veto power, which thankfully they did last spring. But they still allowed what weve called the Son of Frankenstein veto, with which the governor can rewrite numbers or words to change the meaning of laws. That power should be taken away, as well.
The president, on the other hand, would have only the ability to eliminate full lines from spending bills. And, to satisfy a Supreme Court objection raised when it ruled the line-item veto unconstitutional in 1996, the proposal would require that Congress vote on the presidents request to eliminate specific spending items.
The major difference, then, is that a presidential line-item veto would for specific items to be eliminated, while the Wisconsin governors veto power allows for items to be rewritten and changed.
Again, its a subtle but significant difference.
I hope that answers the very good questions raised.
A couple of readers questioned our boards viewpoint, comparing that to our view nearly a year ago that Gov. Jim Doyle should have his extensive veto powers reduced in Wisconsin.
How does this compare with the veto power available to our Gov. Doyle which everyone protests is grossly unfair, wrote Monrovian 66.
I could be wrong but, at one point in time, didnt the Times disagree with the governor having the line-item veto power in Our View? Yet, now, they agree with it? questioned r.
Points to both readers assuming theyre two different people for making the connection, and for asking the question. There is, however, a subtle but significant difference between Doyles powers and what the president would be granted in the current proposal.
First, the Times has not opposed giving the governor veto capabilities on spending. Its objected to the bizarre and extensive authority the governor has within those veto capabilities.
Until last year, Wisconsins governor was able to move letters and words, and combine sentences to change laws. The power was dubbed The Frankenstein veto.
The Times urged lawmakers to ban the peculiar veto power, which thankfully they did last spring. But they still allowed what weve called the Son of Frankenstein veto, with which the governor can rewrite numbers or words to change the meaning of laws. That power should be taken away, as well.
The president, on the other hand, would have only the ability to eliminate full lines from spending bills. And, to satisfy a Supreme Court objection raised when it ruled the line-item veto unconstitutional in 1996, the proposal would require that Congress vote on the presidents request to eliminate specific spending items.
The major difference, then, is that a presidential line-item veto would for specific items to be eliminated, while the Wisconsin governors veto power allows for items to be rewritten and changed.
Again, its a subtle but significant difference.
I hope that answers the very good questions raised.
